Cleveland State University

Faculty Senate

MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE FACULTY SENATE
November 10, 2004

I. Approval of the Agenda
II. Approval of the Minutes of the September 15, 2004 Meeting
III. Committee Election
IV. University Curriculum Committee (Report No. 4, 2004-2005)
V. Admissions and Standards Committee
VI. Report from the E-Learning Committee (Report No. 9, 2004-2005)
VII.University President’s Report
VIII. New Business

PRESENT: Angelova, A. Benander, Berlin-Ray, Boyle, Cherry, Dean, Dobda, Doerder, Droney, Ekelman, Forte, Gelman, Ghorashi, Govea, Gross, Hanlon, Hanniford, S. Hill, Hinds, Hoffman, Hoke, Humer, S. Kaufman, L. Keller, Konangi, Kuo, Larson, Lazarus, Lehfeldt, Makridis, McLoughlin, Mills, Nuru-Holm, Ozturk, L. Patterson, Reichert, B. Rucker, Scherer, Schwartz, Shah, Silberger, M. Smith, Sparks, E. Thomas, Thornton, Visocky-O’Grady, Ziolek.

ABSENT: C. Alexander, E. Anderson, Atherton, Barbato, W. Bowen, Dillard-Mitchell, J. O. Flynn, Gorla, M. Kaufman, Li, Lopresti, McCahon, Mikelbank, J. Nolan, P. O’Donnell, Poznanski, L. E. Reed, Rosentraub, M. Saunders, Sawicki, Slane, Spicer, Spiker, Steinglass, Tewari, Tumeo, Walton, J. Webb.

ALSO PRESENT: Meiksins, Steinbacher.

Senate President Vijay Konangi called the meeting to order at 3:05 P.M.

I. Approval of the Agenda

Acceptance of the Agenda for November 10, 2004 was moved, seconded, and approved.

II. Approval of the Minutes of the September 15, 2004 Meeting

Acceptance of the Minutes of the September 15, 2004 meeting was moved, seconded, and approved.

III. Committee Election

The Faculty Senate elected Professor Victor Matos, Computer & Information Science, to a two-year term on the Minority Affairs Committee.

IV. University Curriculum Committee (Report No. 4, 2004-2005)

Professor Peter Meiksins, Chair of the University Curriculum Committee, stated that there has been considerable discussion over the past few months about the General Education Requirement at Cleveland State. The discussion was started by President Schwartz having raised the issue, and most members probably saw the article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer on Sunday which outed this discussion if members were not already aware of it. The University Curriculum Committee was the obvious place for this discussion since the UCC has jurisdiction over the General Education Requirement. When President Schwartz brought it to the UCC’s attention, the committee talked about it and agreed that there were enough concerns being expressed in different quarters about the General Education Requirement, and that there were enough simmering pots in various areas of the General Education Requirement where people had already initiated discussions or revisions of one kind or another that it made sense to take a look at the whole thing. If nothing else, maybe the outcome of the discussion would be that we would be able to tell other people why it is a requirement to take these courses. The UCC agreed that this was a good idea. A retreat was held a few weeks ago at which a number of the members of the UCC – Paul Doerder and Liz Lehfeldt were there – and various Deans and Administrators, and Barbara Hoffman was there, and several other people having an informal kind of discussion of these issues. Out of that came a number of ideas about things we would like to discuss. The most concrete outcome of this retreat was the suggestion that perhaps we ought to form some kind of Task Force to take on the task of looking at the General Education Requirement with a completely open mandate and to listen to faculty concerns, talk over various plans, and look at models at other universities. The Task Force can either come to the conclusion that things are fine, or, if there are problems, to identify them and to identify possible ways of resolving them. The Task Force would have no decision-making authority. Its job would simply be to report back to the University Curriculum Committee, which is the body whose job it is to recommend to this body (Faculty Senate) any curricular change. If, at that point, recommendations are necessary, the Task Force would make them. The UCC would deliberate and any final decision would be taken to Faculty Senate. The document included in the meeting materials is essentially a proposal drafted by the UCC on the basis of President Schwartz’s suggestion to create such a Task Force and to empower it to go about the business of investigating the General Education Requirements – finding out what people think and formulating any suggestions about possible changes. There is no time-line attached to this because tasks like this take longer than they should. It is likely to be a slow process. It is hoped that this can be done in our lifetime with concrete suggestions that everyone will appreciate.

Professor Meiksins noted that the Academic Steering Committee felt this issue ought to be brought to Faculty Senate so he is duly submitting the proposed creation of a Task Force to the Senate for consideration. He is asking the Senate to authorize the UCC to go about creating such a Task Force and initiating its process.

Professor Eric Ziolek inquired if the State mandates anything about General Education and if there is a statement that they have about what kinds of things ought to be in it. Professor Meiksins responded that the Ohio Board of Regents has guidelines for what General Education Requirements minimally should look like. He believes that they are under discussion again, and there is a lot of discussion about how to change them. One of the motivating forces behind this review of our own curriculum is precisely that – we are being put under increasing pressure to accept transfer courses from community colleges and things of that sort, many of which essentially become our General Education courses. We need to rethink about whether we are happy with the curriculum we are currently offering in that context. That is one of the constraints that we have to operate within – we have to be legal from the point of OBOR.

Professor Ziolek stated that the reason he asked is that we don’t list it as one of the things we have to consider. Professor Meiksins noted that it is implicit in it but if he (Professor Ziolek) would like it to be added to the agenda, he could certainly do that. He is talking also about whether we should also investigate the Ohio Guidelines for what a General Education Requirement should be and make sure that ours are consistent with that. He can certainly add that, or if Professor Ziolek is happy to assume that the UCC will do that, whatever is preferred.

Professor Barbara Hoffman commented, assuming that the UCC is authorized by the Senate to proceed, what would be the procedure for selecting the members of the Task Force? Professor Meiksins replied that the procedure that the UCC suggests is to have the UCC work with the Curriculum Committees of the various Colleges to identify individuals in each College who are willing and hopefully capable of contributing to this effort. The UCC’s idea was that there should be a representative from each College. In addition, the idea is to have two chairs – Professor Meiksins from the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences and somebody from the College of Science because those are the two colleges primarily responsible for offering these courses. There would be a Co-Chair situation which would be a good situation. The UCC hasn’t yet identified the person in the College of Science although they are working on it. It would basically have a college representative system – so somebody from each college with some over representation from CLASS and COS because of their disproportion responsibility for offering the courses. In addition, it would be a good idea to have at least one student. The Library should also have at least a non-voting member because there are information issues that need to be kept in mind and having someone from the Library there would make that happen. There obviously are all kinds of constituencies who cannot be directly incorporated into a committee. The UCC’s idea is to talk to as many groups as possible and to try to incorporate their concerns into it. There is concern with the global learning task force, and that is obviously at the top of the list of people that we need to listen to and to hear from. There are other groups like that. There is a discussion of learning communities going on with another committee on campus, and that is another one that the UCC obviously needs to spend some time with and learn from.

There being no further discussion, Senate President Konangi asked the Senate to vote on the proposal. The proposal that the University Curriculum Committee create a Task Force on the General Education Requirement was unanimously approved.

V. Admissions and Standards Committee

Professor Roberta Steinbacher, Chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee, stated that the Committee has four proposals to be considered by Faculty Senate.

A. Proposed Exception to the S/U Grade Policy for Courses in the Major (Report No. 5, 2004-2005)

Dr. Steinbacher noted that the policy now states that no S/U grades are allowed in one's major which is basically an undergraduate policy. This proposal would allow for internships, service, co-op, or field experiences, to be graded S and U if the department so chose and had permission of its college. It is an exception to the current policy.

There being no questions or discussion, Senate President Konangi called for a vote on the proposal. The proposed exception to the S/U Grade Policy for Courses in the Major was unanimously approved.

B. Proposed Revision to the English Language Proficiency Policy for International Applicants whose Native Language is not English (Report No. 6, 2004-2005)

Dr. Steinbacher noted that this proposal is to add another option to the English Language Proficiency Policy for International Applicants whose Native Language is not English. This option would be successful completion of Cleveland State University’s Intensive English Language Program (advanced level) with a grade of 80% or better. This would be the ninth option in the supporting materials for measuring English Language proficiency at Cleveland State University. The eighth option was added last year.

Senate President Konangi noted that this course is currently being offered at CSU by the Division of Continuing Education and because we are offering it at CSU, that is why this requirement has been proposed.

An unidentified Senator asked if there are any other data suggesting or speaking to the correlation between that major and other majors that are on the list in terms of level of strictness or such. Professor Steinbacher responded that there is no data unless Dean Hanniford has it. It is a joint project between Continuing Education and ESL. Dr. Steinbacher stated that the Committee did not receive any and asked Dean Hanniford if she knew of any. Dean Hanniford stated that there could well be some but she was not familiar with it. Professor Barbara Hoffman stated that from personal experience with English as a second language programs, it is quite common to substitute successful completion of an upper level intensive English program for a TOEFL score for purposes of admission. She said that she did not have data, but she has personal experience.

Professor Sanda Kaufman was concerned with putting the burden of passing a student who came from who knows what distance from home to this place and putting the burden of deciding whether that student should stay here or not on somebody in the University. She personally would feel much more comfortable with any external measure of this capability because otherwise we are going to ask this person to decide whether a student can make it or not after they have already made a decision to show up here. That would be a very heavy burden.

Senate President Konangi noted that in most cases, students do take the TOEFL prior to coming here.

Professor Sanda Kaufman stated that her preference is for any of the measures up to the ones that state that the students should complete courses here.

Dr. Steinbacher noted that if the students do not pass, they have some fail-safe things behind it – they are not just gone. She stated that Dr. Kaufman had made a very good point.

Dr. Rodger Govea stated that another option could simply be added. If one has TOEFL or any of the other eight criteria, one would not need the ninth. Professor Sanda Kaufman said that she was just expressing her preference for external criteria. Professor Govea commented that it would be better for them to do one through six rather than none. Dr. Konangi added that in most countries, you have to take the TOEFL to get a visa.

There being no further discussion, Senate President asked the Senate to vote. The proposed revision to the English Language Proficiency Policy for International Applicants whose Native Language is not English was approved.

C. Proposed Recommendation to Eliminate the NA and ** Grade Designations and to Revise the I Grade Policy (Report No. 7, 2004-2005)

Professor Steinbacher noted that the third proposal has three inter-related parts. The first is to eliminate the NA and ** grades for reason of fairness and integrity of the academic record but most of all, there are serious implications for financial aid. The second and third parts of this proposal were thought to be necessary to firm up and further clarify faculty options for grading students who never showed up or tended to disappear before the semester ended. The second part clarifies the I grade and the third part changes the default to an X, which as you know under the current practice, becomes a **. That practice also has serious financial aid implications. She expressed the Admissions and Standards Committee’s thanks to Mr. Peter Trumpower and Mr. Ed Mills for supplying the data that is attached to this proposal, and they are both present today to answer any questions or concerns members may have.

Professor Sanda Kaufman asked if there is any concern about what proportion of the course the student has already taken. She is just asking for clarification. Can we just say this after the first two weeks, or after half a semester, or after three quarters. Is there any concern there? Can they require an incomplete in any point in the semester? Dr. Steinbacher answered that it is up to the faculty member. The Admissions and Standards Committee didn’t put any time limit on it. Dr. David Larson stated that it is always up to the faculty member.

Professor Sanda Kaufman noted that previously, the student had to have completed most of the stuff in the course and would maybe have one or more things to complete. She is just trying to clarify the proposal. Dr. Steinbacher said that the committee couldn’t put a time limit on it. Professor Kaufman added that somebody could be two weeks into the term when they see that the course is not quite for them so they ask for an incomplete. I am looking at them and saying, “You look good, you can pass this course” and they say, “Okay, fine, just give me an incomplete.” Dr. Steinbacher agreed that that is possible. We do it now, but now when we do it, we give them an NA and that has financial aid implications.

Senate President Konangi stated that the policy states, “For reasons being justified by the instructor.”

Dr. Steinbacher noted that the Committee did not want to put a time limit on it. Right now if we don’t see them till the end, we give an NA. Now if you haven’t seen that student until the end of the class, you are going to give him/her an I.

Professor Barbara Hoffman said that one of the great advantages of these proposed changes is that it places the responsibility squarely on the students to communicate with the instructor and to let the instructor know if there is a reason they are not attending class, if there is a reason they can’t complete the assignments, or if they intend to withdraw. Right now, we just have to guess. This change would make it a requirement that those students either come and see us or communicate with us or receive an X.

An unidentified senator asked if we have the sense of the number of students that this will affect. She has raw numbers, but she doesn’t know how many students are involved in a semester – what percentage of students. Dr. Steinbacher responded that the data on freshmen are very striking. Mr. Peter Trumpower stated that as far as the number of students, we are looking at about 400 to 500 NAs per term. As far as the percent of undergraduates, that would be about 2.5 to 4.0 percent in the last couple of terms.

There being no further discussion, Senate President Konangi asked for a vote on the proposal. The proposed recommendation to eliminate the NA and ** grade designations and to revise the I grade policy was approved unanimously.

D. Proposed Standardized Admission Criteria for the Post Secondary Enrollment Options Program (PSEOP) (Report No. 8, 2004-2005)

Professor Roberta Steinbacher reported that this proposed change was prompted by the State of Ohio’s removal of the 9 th grade proficiency exam last year. You will see in the criteria that basically the proposal is to substitute the ACT/SAT plan and an essay instead of the 9 th grade proficiency exam. The proposal is to try this out for two years with new admissions criteria for these high school students. The Admissions and Standards Committee will review it in two years.

Senate President Konangi noted that Professor Barbara Margolius, the director of the Honors Program, expressed her regrets in being unable to attend this meeting but she wanted him to convey the message that she thinks the PSEOP program is a wonderful working tool for honors students and she would urge the Senate to approve this proposal.

Professor Jeffrey Dean commented that as the proposal stands, it is not clear to him whether the essay is really a standard. Does it have to be adequate or convincing or do the students just have to turn in something? Dr. Steinbacher responded that the Admissions and Standards Committee felt this was a serious part of it, and there would be a committee that would judge the essays.

Professor Dean noted then that the essays will be evaluated by somebody. Dr. Steinbacher responded that they would.

Professor Dean asked if something could be added to the language that the essays would be judged adequate by an appropriate committee or something to that effect.

Senate President Konangi asked if Professor Dean’s suggestion was a friendly amendment.

Dr. Steinbacher responded that certainly language could be added that a committee would judge the essays.

Mr. Edward Mills stated that this was made as an assumption, and Professor Dean’s suggested language could be written into the admission criteria with no problem.

There being no further discussion on the proposal, Dr. Konangi asked members to vote. The proposed Standardized Admission Criteria for the Post Secondary Enrollment Options Program (PSEOP) was unanimously approved.

VI. Report from the E-Learning Committee (Report No. 9, 2004-2005)

Mr. Mike Droney, Vice President for Information Services, distributed a hard copy of his PowerPoint presentation and encouraged members to follow along with the hard copy. Mr. Droney first thanked members of the committee that put together this E-Learning strategy recommendation. Many of you remember that we did a for-profit analysis and presented it to Faculty Senate several months ago. One of the recommendations is that we ought to have an E-Learning strategy and an approach to E-learning here at CSU. In fact, this is our first cut. First, the credit goes primarily to the people on the Committee. Many of them are represented here at Senate today and promised to bail him out in a tight pinch. The E-Learning Committee met for several sessions during several months. They did read and analyze a lot of data. When the data was divided up, it was really overwhelming. It took us several iterations and several passes until we finally found some consistent trends we felt comfortable with that could be the basis of thinking about a strategy.

At the lower end, we are calling it the traditional classroom approach. At the high end, it is more the full Web enabled sophisticated electronic kind of independent study we think of perhaps when we think e-learning – anytime, anywhere, Web kind of instruction. We found that what is true is that the more technology you bring into the equation, obviously the higher the risk, but sometimes, the better the return. Then down at the bottom, we found that as we moved from left to right, the complexity of putting it together gets a little bit more difficult. We run into a lot of traditional culture issues, and then the financial investment we pay attention to grows. With that in mind, it was found that we could map the evolution of e-learning. In each bubble on the chart, among our small committee of a few people, we found a tremendous inconsistency of how we defined e-learning. The group went together and removed the bottom two bubbles and said that when we talk e-learning, we are going to talk everything from on-line discussions, distance learning CT type courses, Web courses that are blended with traditional training, full Web courses that are available for on-line degrees, complete certification programs available from the Web, shared knowledge repositories where course components are catalogued and can be plucked out and imbedded into a course, and the whole consortia idea – the team work approach. Taking that philosophy and definition, we added one more variable to this chart. We found that the source of a lot of the content for the more traditional approaches to e-learning was developed internally. However, we are finding that in combination with the internally developed content, there is an added factor of collaboration. If you are all familiar with on-line learning networks, a lot of valuable components and information is obtained from them. They now are in the business of actually capitalizing and providing a central repository of course-ware that can be used across Ohio universities in e-learning. That is one example. At the other side of the equation, another pattern was found. In the early stages in this evolution, it was pretty much an individual effort. An individual faculty person would aggressively go after these new technologies to improve or to enhance his/her courses. Then we found that as e-learning evolved into these later stages, it got to be more of a college perceived approach. What we are seeing now is that the true management style is much more university focused in these later stages. The complexity and technology is driving part of that – the synergies that could be gotten. A lot of testimony is out there that you have probably read about. In these early stages, the return on the original investments wasn’t always there. There is a lot of testimonial to that where there is big money being spent. Until some of these improved ways of handling it have been interjected, we are starting to see some enhanced improvement – the kind of improvement that Jack Boyle likes – the financial kind of improvement. So, in fact, that is what is going on outside of CSU. Then we said, where do we map. So, taking an honest look at ourselves, this is the committee’s opinion and recommendation. At CSU today, we probably could account for about four and a half people across all of the colleges in the administrative sectors of CSU that really devote themselves to e-learning. Given what we see, what kind of strategy approaches could we look at? We said if we kept the same kind of strategy we have today, we could make incremental improvements and inch ourselves up that evolution chart. So, going from the bubble into this first layer, we could continue at four and a half and inch our way up. Where could we be at if we double the resources? Let’s say that we went to eight. We truly believe, based on some preliminary high-level educated guesses, that we could enhance our e-learning presence to a more significant degree, but we couldn’t reach or begin to touch into this top evolutionary bubble. So the next logical question is, how many resources does it take to get there? We asked that of ourselves and through bench-marking and looking at other university’s programs and other curriculums, we found out to our consensus at the Committee level that it would take somewhere in the neighborhood of fifteen staff. Some institutions are really dedicated and have larger e-learning staffs than that. We quoted this in staff size for financial analysis. This is not a one-time cost where we throw a million dollars at it and the problem goes away. It is a recurring cost so we quote it as staff members to show that this is an additional cost that happens and continues to happen. In fact, that is where we are now. The recommendation is being communicated across campus now and we are getting various inputs. At the same time, we have been challenged by President Schwartz to give him more detail on what we can do if we were more aggressive in this approach, what kind of approach would the committee recommend, and what kind of a business plan or investment will be required. We are actually cranking through that effort right now just to get some sense of what that would entail.

Professor Candice Hoke commented that presumably Mr. Droney is still talking about administrative staff. Presumably, as well, the administrative staff is not designing the courses or doing the teaching. So her question is, where do the faculty come in on this projection and how do they relate to the staffing? Mr. Droney answered that they see an e-learning organization as one that is doing very specific things in terms of this charge. One, it assists faculty in developing e-learning so faculty are accountable for content, but they shouldn’t have to learn all of the tools, all of the design techniques, the philosophies of structuring a good e-learning, or know how to go to a repository and research what is available and reduce it down. The bottom line is that we see this e-learning initiative (we are talking about the staff here) as a faculty resource and not necessarily a displacement tool. Now the sensitive part is that we all have to recognize that an external collaboration is almost required for those who are most advanced which reflects a model that says that all of the content doesn’t have to be invented here. It could be invented at Kent, it could be invented at other universities and we collaborate and exchange it. But we should have some core competencies here that we can really capitalize on ourselves. So it is that whole concept of consortia, collaboration, and joint effort.

Professor Candice Hoke said, “Just to follow up, with fifteen staff, you haven’t really yet defined what kind of staff these would be. It could be faculty with release time to do some of this.” Mr. Droney agreed that there is definitely another component to this like faculty with release time.

Provost Chin Kuo commented that he has done a little bit of analysis on e-learning. The College of Education and Human Services is already pioneering some programs along that line to encourage more faculty to develop Web-based courses. They actually issued a RFP within their college. His idea is to expand that program to cover everybody on campus. He is in the process of doing that. He needs to talk to the Deans as well. He has some preliminary data to share. Whatever we say here is basically to cover the faculty who need to develop the Web-based courses and who need some release time or some other support. Other support means to make sure everybody has to use the same Web CT. Everybody should not use their own software. We also have licensing issues and that is what he calls quality control. The second part is staff support. Each unit, i.e., the college or department, will have somebody to help you develop the Web page. Each unit has somebody doing something but there will be somebody at the university level that will be able also to provide you with extra support or training. So that is staff support. The bottom line, if we assume that a person wants to develop a course with a certain objective, and assume we only replace at the present “replacement cost”, and assume that cost is about $4,000 to $5,000 per course for release time, and assume that we are going to shoot for 20 courses per year, that means about $100,000 just for the release time alone. To provide extra coordination and the central support, we may need about two new positions in addition to the 4.5 we currently have. He is thinking maybe about one half position for coordination and one and a half position to do other things to help you out. Those two positions would be somewhere in the $80,000 to $90,000 range. To put the two together, if the goal is to have 20 courses per year for the next three, four, five years, then take this budget item off because we are not going to continue to do the maintenance – that is the faculty’s responsibility to continue to do the update. That is the minimum. For now, he is thinking the permanent budget is for two staff at maybe $100,000 and then another $100,000 just to pay the release time alone. So $200,000 is what he is thinking at this point.

Professor Edward Thomas noted that Mr. Mike Droney had mostly told Senate about what the investment is going to be. He wondered what has been done in terms of looking at the reward and also the competitive analysis. Mr. Droney responded that that is in the next phase, and the committee is just starting into that now. They are trying to do a market kind of analysis. A lot of background work is still necessary.

Professor Sanda Kaufman was interested in knowing whether the Committee has looked into student preferences, in other words, would we be getting a lot more students? Mr. Droney replied that this is part of the market analysis.

Dr. Peter Meiksins mentioned quality. We think about the benefit, but we also have to think about whether these courses deliver in a way that satisfies.

Senate President Konangi commented that as various stages are achieved, there will be constant reports and if there are action items, they will be taken through the faculty governance process.

Professor Rodger Govea asked if there are a projective percentage of courses to be delivered on line. Dr. Konangi replied that President Schwartz’s wish in his Vision 2009 Statement is that 50% of the courses should be on line or supplemented by on-line instruction.

Professor Candice Hoke noted that having taught several Web CT courses, she is just wondering if the figures are going to take into account the needs of the students because there are always technological glitches along the way and that has been an on-going problem. Mr. Droney replied that this is one of the big reasons why we see the movement towards a university approach to get more standards within the delivery, more reliability and more repeat ability, several passwords, etc.

Senate President Konangi commented that there are a lot of faculty related issues in this e-learning and we haven’t quite made a catalogue of all of the issues yet. We are identifying all of the issues that need to be addressed. A lot of work must be done before any progress can be made.

Dr. David Larson asked if the Committee is also looking at academic issues, i.e., what kinds of courses are suitable for e-learning and what courses are not. Somebody has to look at this.

Dr. Vijay Konangi stated that it then gets to the Colleges and they have to decide. It is not known how that will be done. Perhaps the Colleges and the College Curriculum Committees will have to decide and there has to be faculty. There are a lot of policies and procedures that need to be addressed as well.

Professor Sanda Kaufman indicated that she was a little bit unclear about how we can possibly have such a precise goal for a precise time of 50% of the courses when we haven’t answered all of these critical questions about what kinds of courses are most suitable and all of this other stuff and especially what the students’ preferences are. They might not care for 50% of the courses being delivered by Web. Dr. Konangi said that he shares those same concerns.

Dr. Andrew Gross stated that he is not an expert in this field but what he has seen is that MIT is basically trying to put most of its courses on a Web site and there was great fear among the MIT faculty that this will jeopardize MIT’s quality, etc. The answer was, well, anybody can look over all of these courses, but they are not going to get an MIT degree, number one, and, number two, the interaction among students and students and faculty will not be present by doing this. So, he doesn’t have the fear that some people have, but he would like to see this Committee, somehow in the coming years, come up with a goal on how this fits in the general concept of student/faculty and student/student interaction. Mr. Droney stated that Professor Gross had made an excellent point.

Professor Candice Hoke asked, “If we do have 50% of the courses on line, does that mean that they will not be taught in a classroom, or is it possible that we will make them available in both places?” Mr. Droney stated 50% or supplemented… Dr. Konangi added that it is in a very preliminary stage. There are lots of unanswered questions.

Professor Alan Reichert commented that the whole idea of e-learning being introduced at the undergraduate level makes a lot of sense because when our students graduate and take a job, they are going to be continuing to learn the rest of their lives – the rest of their professional careers and it is clear that the private sector is substantially ahead of the public sector in general education in terms of taking that approach. We are doing our students a great service in the long run, not just in terms of the four or five years they are here at this institution, but in developing the comfort level in a life-long learning experience because we are not past the year 2009, but they are going to be looking at 2019 and 2029, and 95% of them are going to be e-learning at that time. It behooves us to set objectives and move in that direction as quickly as possible. We are kind of in a catch-up situation.

Professor Beth Ekelman stated that she thinks a lot of people do have the misperception that when we do courses on Web CT, there is no discussion but she knows from her courses that are at the graduate level, the discussions are very lively and actually she feels that students feel freer to say things when they don’t have to look at you. She has really had some very good discussions on her courses and it really all goes to how it is designed.

VII. University President’s Report

President Michael Schwartz commented that many more years ago than he really cares to recall, at the University of Illinois he was a graduate student working on a project that had to do with instruction using television. He was supposed to go around campus to all these TV sites and count students and talk to some of them. When he got to one of those sites, a young woman was sitting there with her back to the television set listening intently and taking copious notes. The President had said to her, “Why don’t you turn around and look at it?” She said, “I reject this entire notion of teaching with technology out of hand.”

President Schwartz reported that last Friday night, five of our students were seriously injured in an automobile accident. They were hit by a drunk driver and were all hospitalized. One was in critical condition and had to undergo eight hours of surgery. Two others were also operated on. Three are still in the hospital. One will probably be released today or tomorrow, and two are back in their apartments. The staff in International Services has been monitoring the students closely. They are all from India. The faculty of this institution cannot have been more supportive of these students and their needs. The efforts of the faculty here are greatly appreciated. This is one of those terrible things that from time to time strike universities, and he knows that everyone from Senate will want to express sympathy to those students.

On enrollment news, President Schwartz reported that we lost just roughly about 500 to 550 students this semester from one year ago. Some of that loss was planned and that was in the College of Law. We have been asking the Law College to reduce the size of the entering class. They did it a little faster than we thought might happen, but in his view, that is all for the good. The remainder of the problem is in transfers. The freshmen class is okay – pretty much in line with what we have been doing. Students are staying in the community colleges as long as they can, and it is a matter of price. We are working on a strategy to counter that but the price differential is so great, it can’t be ignored. The issue of the transfer modules is being pressed very hard by the two-year institutions to the point that they want to have as many classes as possible at their institutions that can count toward the major even in the upper division. This, of course, is a delight to some members of the Ohio Board of Regents and to some members of the legislature. We have a real problem on our hands and everybody needs to understand what we are wrestling with. However, President Schwartz feels that we will recover. The President noted that Mr. Ed Mills has reported some gains for summer enrollment and for next fall. Seeing that already is good news. But, that is where the pressure is. Quite frankly, the pricing structure in higher education has been designed to favor the community colleges. We are working on how to cope with it. President Schwartz said that any bright ideas are more than welcome.

President Schwartz noted that there is good news. It was recently reported in the newspaper that the NCAA concluded the investigation into the men’s basketball program and said that we are clean for now. He is really very glad to see that because, quite frankly, we were victimized. He also regrets that some of the media hyped it pretty hard because they thought the story had legs to it, and it didn’t. Good for Lee Reed.

President Schwartz commented that some members probably saw Sunday’s Cleveland Plain Dealer. He takes no responsibility for the photograph. Nevertheless, he thought the article was really quite good, and it has started to get a lot of people’s attention. A lot of people are talking about it which is also for the good.

President Schwartz noted that last Friday night, CSU had a black tie scholarship fundraising event which was sold out. It was at the Inter-Continental Hotel. We had not done anything like that before and people have really begun to pay attention to us. We had three student speakers that night telling their story of what scholarships meant to them. The President said that after the first student spoke, he wasn’t sure they were going to get through the rest of the night because all of these folks in black ties were on their feet cheering her. It was one of the most compelling speeches from a student he had ever heard in his life.

President Schwartz commented that a dinner was held last night honoring all of the Fulbright award winners of Cleveland State’s forty-year history. Nineteen award winners were able to be there. Some were teaching and some had left us, but it was a grand evening. This is a good bunch, and he was proud to be among those members of the faculty who were able to be there last night. It was a great honor for him personally. They reflected so well on this university. They were shown on Channel 8 news last night at 10:00 P.M., and Channel 3 was there and picked them up as well. And, at the same time we were being lauded, Channel 8, was reviling the travel practices at Ohio University and Ohio State University, but allowed that we were not excessive in our travel.

President Schwartz reported on ongoing construction projects. He has been told that the plaza project is on time and on budget, and we are about to begin on the student recreation center. Pretty soon the dome will come down and that will be the kick-off for all of those other projects. We are trying to figure out the resource base and what we are going to have to do to make sure that there is bread on the table, but he feels that we can do that. Mrs. Wolstein sure did make a statement about an institution that is worth investing in, and we are taking the picture around to other people.

President Schwartz reported that Vice President Joe Nolan retires on December 10, 2004 and there will be a reception for him. He added that that will be a tough one.

Professor Candice Hoke commented that since President Schwartz brought up the media, she wanted to mention that this week in her employment law class, a reporter from the Cleveland Plain Dealer was one of her guests. They were discussing how to generate better business, and better jobs for this area, and the business vision, and the reporter quite extemporaneously said that for the first time in his history in Cleveland, we have two highly visionary, highly competent university presidents, meaning CSU and CASE. Then he went on to say that we need these people. They are working together, they are working with their cities, and they are going to be the engines that are going to recreate the qualities that we need to move this area. She thought that this should be on the record.

President Schwartz said that it was very nice and very kind of Professor Hoke to share those remarks and everyone applauded. President Schwartz said that sometimes you want to temper those kinds of things for a lot of reasons. There are people who are devoted to the future of this city. The real issue is to get people to understand that we may contribute to the development of this community indirectly. We are not in the economic development business. We are in the education business and we have to do that better than anybody else and constantly do it given our resources. If we keep our eye on that, other good things will follow. But let’s keep our eye on what we do for a living here and let’s not try to do things we don’t know how to do because that gets awfully messy, and we really can’t be made to look bad.

President Schwartz brought up the issue of students’ cell phone usage. He asked if it is a growing problem and if it is something we need to pay attention to, or is it a minor annoyance and we let it go. He said that he knows about text messaging during exams and stated that we have to get a hold on that. Professor Susan Hill felt that it wasn’t any more problematic than all of the other things we deal with like students coming late, eating in class, and falling asleep. It is all part of classroom behavior.

President Schwartz commented about the general run of the mill respect for the enterprise. He felt that this is something that needs to be taken up. Maybe it isn’t the cell phone issue; maybe it is a broader statement that there is a problem and that is respect for the enterprise. He wondered if perhaps Senate President Konangi would want to form an ad hoc committee of the Senate to start to think about this issue. He would be more than happy to join such a group, and he is sure that the Provost would be happy to join as well. He has been in classes and he has been invited to guest lecture and the students come in at will. Leaving early is a little insulting, but maybe he had that coming. It does seem to him that this notion of respect for what goes on here is something we have got to get our hands on. From our point of view, this is serious business and it must be taken seriously by the people who are supposed to be beneficiaries of our efforts.

Professor Barbara Hoffman stated that anything that can be done to reinforce the notion of respect is certainly welcome, but she does believe that it is the job of each and every one of us to set the tone in our classroom and to turn off our own cell phones before we enter the classroom. She noted that she was guilty of forgetting to do that once. It happens so we have to be tolerant of those rare occasions when somebody forgets but she has observed a number of colleagues who maintain too much of a casual interaction with their students and that does not foster respect. There is a way to interact with students in such a way that they will behave the way they need to – they will come in on time, they will stay, and they will inform you if they have to leave early. Each and every one of us needs to take responsibility for that.

President Schwartz noted that this issue may be worthy of a long faculty conversation, and he is sure if we are going to have it, it is this body that should organize it and lead it. It is enough of a problem and it needs to be addressed. The University Center is a good example – it has been trashed. There is no way in the world the best crew could keep up with the way the students treat this facility. So, when the President starts walking around on the ground floor of this building picking up trash, and the students look at him as though he has absolutely lost his mind rather than giving him a hand, we have a problem. He added that it is not just generational either. We dolled up the Upper Deck and did a very nice job of it but it will take a couple of industrial strength carpet cleaners to clean it up. The time has come for us to take some kind of action collectively with regard to telling our students that there are, in fact, standards of conduct at a university that they are expected to observe. This may be old-fashion, but it is also overdue. So if the Senate will take up this issue, he is with the Senate.

Dr. Andrew Gross brought up a question he had at a spring meeting of the Senate and President Schwartz had said that he would take it up with the Greater Cleveland Partnership and that is the practice of some organizations to reimburse more money to students for A's than for B's. Professor Gross wondered if the President had any feedback from them. President Schwartz responded that the Greater Cleveland Partnership has spent the better part of a year trying to get organized but that issue is still on the agenda and he still thinks it is a good point well made.

VIII. New Business

Professor Mieko Smith announced that she and Elaine Vincent of the Advising Office are the co-chairs of this year’s Uniting to Share Campaign, and Charlette Redding of Minority Affairs provides support. Unofficially, Violet Lunder has provided her assistance from the Faculty Senate office. So, it is team work. Dr. Smith reported that a kick-off of the 2004 Uniting to Share Campaign was held on October 22 nd. Over $2,300 was raised towards the goal of $86,000. With the early bird pledges from faculty and staff, approximately $10,000 has been raised thus far. So we are not doing too badly, but we have a way to go. Professor Smith said that today she is asking for everyone’s participation in this campaign. She encouraged faculty to ask other faculty members in their unit to pledge their contributions. She noted that if anyone has lost their pledge form provided through campus mail, they can go to www.csuohio.edu/UTS to get the printable pledge form. Each unit is collecting pledges. She indicated that she also has pledge forms with her today if anyone needs them. She announced that departments receiving 100% contributions will be invited to a pizza party. Events benefiting the campaign include a happy hour and dinner on Tuesday, November 23 rd at the Sage restaurant in Tremont and on Tuesday, December 7 th, President Schwartz will hold a holiday reception from 3:00 to 5:00 P.M. in Mather Mansion. After the reception, the campaign committee will have a silent auction of valuable items donated from the community. She hopes everyone will stop by the auction and bid. Or, please think about donating your services and goods for others to bid on.

Professor Mieko Smith took this opportunity to thank the members of the Steering Committee who have solicited donations from the community. She noted that Professor Ed Thomas was one of the leading persons on the Steering Committee. Campaign ambassadors in each unit on campus are contributing to help provide a safety net for those in need and to save our planet from further abuse. You can choose your own causes. Listed are Community Shares, Earth Shares, and the United Way agencies. Let’s meet our goal of $86,000.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:22 P.M.

Susan E. Kogler Hill
Faculty Senate Secretary

 

/vel

 

 

[Top of Page]